Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: deterministic newest-first ordering, inclusion of archived and tombstoned records, and the meaning of byte_size as the frozen SKILL.md size. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, which is the notable remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler. Ordering and scope come first, and the byte_size clarification follows as a necessary field-semantics footnote.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and rich annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies ordering, archive/tombstone inclusivity, and byte_size semantics, which is nearly everything an agent needs; only pagination behavior (how limit/offset interact with the newest-first ordering) is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 25% — only tenant_slug is documented. The description says nothing about limit, offset, or skill_id, and gives no pagination or ordering-parameter semantics. With coverage this low, the description is expected to compensate and does not; the mention of byte_size explains an output field, not a parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List skill history") and adds scope qualifiers — newest-first ordering, archived skills, and purged revision tombstones. It doesn't explicitly contrast with kb_skills_revisions_get or kb_revisions_list, but "List" vs "Get" plus the tombstone scope makes the distinction inferable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling kb_skills_revisions_get for fetching a single revision. The phrase "including archived skills and purged revision tombstones" implicitly signals this is the tool for full-history/audit lookups, so usage is inferable but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.